Trump finally finds use for Elon Musk's Cybertrucks
Nick Anderson is a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist.
Nick Anderson is a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist.
The tide is turning in this fight against Republican fascism, and if you listen you can hear it. And when you hear it, you can feel it. And by God, if you can feel it, well then let it move you to take action.
After catching punch after punch from the most anti-American administration in our 248-year history, some of our most cherished institutions and artists in this country are finally hitting back, and hitting back hard.
Politicians were never going to be the answer, my friends, because history tells us that when the people lead, the so-called leaders will follow ...
Me? As a Navy veteran, who has had a steady, 42-year professional relationship with the written word, I spit on Trump and his repeated attacks on America. As readers, I know you do too.
This morning, NPR and PBS signaled they, too, have had enough of this loudmouth traitor, and sued him over his order to cut their funding.
So let’s get this part out of the way quickly: Trump has no damn authority here. It is not his money.
In fact, let me repeat that one for emphasis: IT IS NOT HIS MONEY.
It is OURS.
But I’ll let a paragraph from the stations’ lawsuit speak to that:
“The president has no authority under the Constitution to take such actions. On the contrary, the power of the purse is reserved to Congress.”
This one’s cut and dry, but as usual, you can expect the America-attacker and his odious lawyers to kick it up to Chief Justice John Roberts’ bought-and-paid-for Supreme Court. As usual, they could nip all this silliness in the bud, if they actually cared about the rule of law in this country.
It’s worth saying here, too, that neither NPR nor PBS are going away whether they get this subsidy or not. Just 2 percent of NPR’s budget comes from from federal monies. PBS’s situation is a bit more tenuous, with 15 percent of their budget coming from those grants.
The bulk of their funding comes from private grants, subscribers, donations, and an increasing amount of advertising. If you want to help, I’ll leave this here.
The government subsidy they receive is used primarily to aid in funding local operations and to create original programming. And, no surprise, rural areas would be hurt worst if these cuts were to pass because the convicted felon, Trump, has never cared who he assaults.
While I was at Stars and Stripes, the editorially independent newspaper that serves the troops and their families overseas, we too took a small stipend from the government to help fund our operations. Like PBS and NPR, most of our operating budget came from other sources. In Stripes’ case that was subscriptions, single-copy sales, and advertising dollars.
That didn’t stop Trump from trying to cut that funding during his first disastrous term, until it was pointed out to him that Stripes had the longest, most dangerous circulation route in the world. If he somehow cut that federal funding and doused the troops’ only news source, he, not our enemies, would be responsible for it.
Well, he backed off, and stomped off into his corner to contemplate another attack on America that would commence on January 6, 2021 …
It should also be pointed out that none of these pathetic efforts by Republicans to keep America ignorant and stupid are new. They have pulled this stunt time and again and failed.
I’ll pull from a recent piece in The New York Times to highlight their most epic setback:
The most dramatic showdown between legislators and public media defenders came more than a half-century ago. In 1969, Fred Rogers, the creator of the children’s TV show “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood,” testified before Congress to protest cuts to public media proposed by the Nixon administration. After his testimony, which underscored the value of helping children manage their emotions, a proposal to cut public media funding by half was waved away by Senator John O. Pastore, a Democrat.
“Looks like you just earned the $20 million,” Mr. Pastore said to Mr. Rogers.
It was a beautiful day in the neighborhood … and if guys like Rogers can stand up to this kind of nonsense, it would be about time all these damn universities and corporations along with their “news” networks did the same.
Enter CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley.
Pelley, whose station is also being sued by the serial-lying Trump, started getting some big-time attention today for a commencement address he delivered last week.
Speaking to graduates at North Carolina’s Wake Forest University, the veteran journalist said this:
“In this moment, this morning, our sacred rule of law is under attack. Journalism is under attack. Universities are under attack. Freedom of speech is under attack.”
Here’s some damn fine reporting from the Independent, on Pelley’s important speech:
Delivering his address in theatrical fashion, frequently raising his arms to the heavens like an evangelical pastor, Pelley continued: “Insidious fear is reaching through our schools, our businesses, our homes and into our private thoughts.
“The fear to speak ... in America,” he added, stressing the word to emphasize his horror and dismay in the speech on May 19. “Power can rewrite history, with grotesque, false narratives. They can make criminals heroes, and heroes criminals. Power can change the definition of the words we use to describe reality. Diversity is now described as illegal. Equity is to be shunned. Inclusion is a dirty word. This is an old playbook, my friends. There is nothing new in this.”
I won’t lie, I almost wept when I read this, because there has been so damn little of it coming from people who should know better.
I am so sick and tired of reading the words: “Trump is doing this now … Trump is doing this now … Trump is doing this now …” over and over and over again that I could spit.
What I want to read about is just what in the hell WE are doing about it.
Well, as I noted above the tide seems to finally be changing here, too, and lifting us all up, as patriots like Bruce Springsteen use their influence to enlighten and pushback on this authoritarian punk.
“I've always tried to be a good ambassador for America,” said Springsteen while introducing a performance of “My City of Ruins” in Manchester, England, two weeks ago. “I've spent my life singing about where we have succeeded and where we've come up short in living up to our civic ideals and our dreams. I always just thought that was my job. Things are happening right now in my home that are altering the very nature of our country's democracy and they're simply too important to ignore.”
Perfectly put, Boss …
On Sunday evening Rage Against the Machine’s Tom Morello jumped to Springsteen’s defense and pressed the attack on the America-hating Trump.
From reporting in Rolling Stone today:
When Rage Against the Machine‘s Tom Morello took the stage at Boston Calling Music Festival on Sunday evening, his solo set featured a pointed message. On the screen behind him, a graphic compiled nearly two dozen buttons that read and spelled out “Fuck Trump,” labeled the president a “tyrant,” and referred to him as the “Hater in Chief.” Addressing the crowd, Morello said: “Welcome, brothers and sisters, to the last big event before they throw us all in jail.”
Morello used the performance to join the legion of musicians backing Bruce Springsteen in the musician’s recent standoff with Donald Trump. “Bruce is going after Trump because Bruce, his whole life, he’s been about truth, justice, democracy, equality,” Morello said. “And Trump is mad at him because Bruce draws a bigger audience. F––k that guy.”
Damn straight.
With our corporate media too often failing us, and even submitting to authoritarianism … While phonies like Jake Tapper attack what has passed and ignore the very real and present danger … While the Democratic Party fumbles at the switches to come up with a consistent, unified message … We must look to the arts — our musicians, writers, sculptors, painters, filmmakers — to be truth-tellers during this fascist assault on our nation, and Trump’s grotesque attempt to end us.
YOU, my friends, must be truth-tellers, and get out there and spread words that you know to be true and righteous to everybody — whether they want to hear them or not.
WE must be the change, because while we didn’t ask for this fight, we damn sure better win it.
(D. Earl Stephens is the author of “Toxic Tales: A Caustic Collection of Donald J. Trump’s Very Important Letters” and finished up a 30-year career in journalism as the Managing Editor of Stars and Stripes. You can find all his work here, and follow him on Bluesky here.)
Last week, the Pentagon accepted the emir of Qatar’s gift of a Boeing 747, a $400 million bauble donated for our president to enjoy by a monarch whose family has ruled the tiny Mideast nation for more than a century.
Our commander in chief said the United States would be stupid to reject the donation — a present he hopes to use as a temporary replacement for Air Force One. The key word there: a temporary replacement.
Controversy clouds this gift for a couple of reasons. And Iowa’s public gift law — which deals with freebies much less ostentatious than the Qatari jet — provides important context on the controversy.
First, the Boeing 747 is far from being free. The United States government will need to spend upwards of $1 billion, according to Business Insider magazine, before the president can climb aboard what has been described as a sky palace considering its opulent use of marble and polished wood.
U.S. experts first must inspect the jet to confirm Qatar did not hide any devices that might jeopardize the president’s safety or security. Then the Pentagon needs to retrofit the aircraft with advanced, military-grade communications, security and defensive gear so the new version of Air Force One can serve as an aerial command post during a time of war.
At the conclusion of Donald Trump’s presidency in January 2029, the White House and Pentagon leaders said ownership of the jet will pass to his presidential library foundation — where the plane could become a museum relic or remain in service for Citizen Trump’s personal travel.
That arrangement leaves some of my Iowa government friends incredulous. Even those who are retired can still quote chapter and verse from Iowa’s state government ethics laws that impose no-nonsense restrictions on the acceptance of gifts by public officials and employees.
For example, state government cannot accept a donated $75,000 Chevy Suburban for use by Gov. Kim Reynolds while she is in office and then hand her its keys when her term ends in January 2027.
The fact is, officials in Iowa can accept gifts worth only $3 or less. You read that correctly — $3, not $3 million, and certainly not $300 million.
When The Des Moines Register employed me, I would lunch periodically with state employees. They always paid their tab and I paid mine. They feared even an appearance that they might owe me or my employer a favor in the future if I bought their meal.
With state employees so concerned about such an appearance involving a ham on rye, it is logical to worry about a conflict of interests with Qatar for the rest of the Trump presidency and beyond.
There’s more to this Qatar gift that should raise the eyebrows of Jane and Joe Taxpayer, good-government advocates and Iowans serving in Congress — especially when White House representatives are running chainsaws through the federal budget.
The cost to U.S. taxpayers to prepare the Qatar 747 for the president should cause political heartburn for Republicans in Congress. The optics are terrible. Two similar 747s — adorned with “United States of America” across their fuselages — are fueled and ready to fly the president anywhere, anytime.
The president and the Republican majorities in Congress talk about out-of-control federal spending. They want to pare government safety net programs for the poor, like SNAP and Medicaid. They want to reign in FEMA, the federal disaster recovery agency, and reduce the National Weather Service budget. They want to cut funding for national parks, medical research, food safety inspections and the arts.
But little comment has arisen about the eye-popping price of retrofitting the Qatar jet for the president’s use for the next 36 months and then to remove the secret weaponry and communications gear before the plane sets course for the departing president’s library or personal airstrip.
The federal government already is spending $4 billion for two new Air Force One 747s that now are in production. The Qatar jet will not save a nickel on that contract.
The House last week approved a budget proposal from the White House and Republican leaders that the Congressional Budget Office says will add $2 trillion, with a “t,” to the $36 trillion national debt over the next 10 years. At the same time, the White House and Pentagon are getting ready for a huge military parade in Washington next month costing an estimated $45 million.
There is one more reason the optics of the Qatar gift are so embarrassing.
President Trump’s tariffs on imported products are expected to raise U.S. consumer prices. The president has lectured Americans on their need to make do with less in the near term for the good of the U.S. economy. You know, two dolls instead of 30, five pencils, not 250.
Members of Iowa’s delegation in Congress ought to use one of their pencils to scratch a note to the president and attach a copy of Iowa’s government gift law. The Iowa Code provisions limiting gifts to $3 or less could provide him good airplane reading the next time Air Force One flies over our state.
Plus, a little prairie common sense would teach him that for the good of the federal budget, even presidents can make do with less — specifically, a Qatar 747. Two, not three planes, will work just fine.
The United States has long played a leadership role in NATO, the most successful military alliance in history.
The U.S. and 11 other countries in North America and Europe founded NATO in 1949, following World War II. NATO has since grown its membership to include 32 countries in Europe and North America.
But now, European leaders and politicians fear the United States has become a less reliable ally, posing major challenges for Europe and, by implication, NATO.
This concern is not unfounded.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly spoken of a desire to seize Greenland, which is an autonomous territory of Denmark, a NATO member. He has declared that Canada, another NATO member, should become “the 51st state.” Trump has also sided with Russia at the United Nations and said that the European Union, the political and economic group uniting 27 European countries, was designed to “screw” the U.S.
Still, Trump – as well as other senior U.S. government officials – has said that the U.S. remains committed to staying in and supporting NATO.
For decades, both liberal and conservative American politicians have recognized that the U.S. strengthens its own military and economic interests by being a leader in NATO – and by keeping thousands of U.S. troops based in Europe to underwrite its commitment.
The U.S., Canada and 10 Western European countries formed NATO nearly 80 years ago as a way to help maintain peace and stability in Europe following World War II. NATO helped European and North American countries bind together and defend themselves against the threat once posed by the Soviet Union, a former communist empire that fell in 1991.
NATO employs about 2,000 people at its headquarters in Brussels. It does not have its own military troops and relies on its 32 member countries to volunteer their own military forces to conduct operations and other tasks under NATO’s leadership.
NATO does have its own military command structure, led by an American military officer, and including military officers from other countries. This team plans and executes all NATO military operations.
In peacetime, military forces working with NATO conduct training exercises across Eastern Europe and other places to help reassure allies about the strength of the military coalition – and to deter potential aggressors, like Russia.
NATO has a relatively small annual budget of around US$3.6 billion. The U.S. and Germany are the largest contributors to this budget, each responsible for funding 16% of NATO’s costs each year.
Separate from NATO’s annual budget, in 2014, NATO members agreed that each participating country should spend the equivalent of 2% of its gross domestic product on their own national defense. Twenty two of NATO’s 31 members with military forces were expected that 2% threshold as of April 2025.
Although NATO is chiefly a military alliance, it has roots in the mutual economic interests of both the U.S. and Europe.
Europe is the United States’ most important economic partner. Roughly one-quarter of all U.S. trade is with Europe – more than the U.S. has with Canada, China or Mexico.
Over 2.3 million American jobs are directly tied to producing exports that reach European countries that are part of NATO.
NATO helps safeguard this mutual economic relationship between the U.S. and Europe. If Russia or another country tries to intimidate, dominate or even invade a European country, this could hurt the American economy. In this way, NATO can be seen as the insurance policy that underwrites the strength and vitality of the American economy.
The heart of that insurance policy is Article 5, a mutual defense pledge that member countries agree to when they join NATO.
Article 5 says that an armed attack against one NATO member is considered an attack against the entire alliance. If one NATO member is attacked, all other NATO members must help defend the country in question. NATO members have only invoked Article 5 once, following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the U.S., when the alliance deployed aircraft to monitor U.S. skies.
Trump has questioned whether he would enforce Article 5 and help defend a NATO country if it is not paying the required 2% of its gross domestic product.
NBC News also reported in April 2025 that the U.S. is likely going to cut 10,000 or more of the nearly 85,000 American troops stationed in Europe. The U.S. might also relinquish its top military leadership position within NATO, according to NBC.
Many political analysts expect the U.S. to shift its national security focus away from Europe and toward threats posed by China – specifically, the threat of China invading or attacking Taiwan.
At the same time, the Trump administration appears eager to reset relations with Russia. This is despite the Russian military’s atrocities committed against Ukrainian military forces and civilians in the war Russia began in 2022, and Russia’s intensifying hybrid war against Europeans in the form of covert spy attacks across Europe. This hybrid warfare allegedly includes Russia conducting cyberattacks and sabotage operations across Europe. It also involves Russia allegedly trying to plant incendiary devices on planes headed to North America, among other things.
The available evidence indicates that the U.S. is backing away from its role in Europe. At best – from a European security perspective – the U.S. could still defend European allies with the potential threat of its nuclear weapon arsennal. The U.S. has significantly more nuclear weapons than any Western European country, but it is not clear that this is enough to deter Russia without the clear presence of large numbers of American troops in Europe, especially given that Moscow continues to perceive the U.S. as NATO’s most important and most powerful member.
For this reason, significantly downsizing the number of U.S. troops in Europe, giving up key American military leadership positions in NATO, or backing away from the alliance in other ways appears exceptionally perilous. Such actions could increase Russian aggression across Europe, ultimately threatening not just European security but America's as well.
Maintaining America’s leadership position in NATO and sustaining its troop levels in Europe helps reinforce the U.S. commitment to defending its most important allies. This is the best way to protect vital U.S. economic interests in Europe today and ensure Washington will have friends to call on in the future.
Donald Trump opened Memorial Day in the most disgusting way possible, not by praising our fallen heroes but by attacking Democrats. He wrote on his Nazi-infested social media site on Monday morning:
“Happy Memorial Day to all, including the scum that spent the last four years trying to destroy our country through warped radical left minds…”
When the president of the United States calls members of the oldest political party in the world and a former president “scum,” it’s not just another ugly outburst that embarrasses America before the rest of the world: It’s a warning sign. A bright red flag.
It tells us that something far more sinister than partisan posturing is afoot. Something our media has already decided to overlook in their perpetual effort to normalize the abominable.
This kind of rhetoric isn’t new, and it’s not harmless. History has shown us — again and again — that when political leaders use dehumanizing language to vilify their opponents, they’re in actuality laying the groundwork for authoritarianism, repression, and violence.
In a healthy democracy, political disagreements are expected. Even fierce debates over policy and direction are part of the process. But a functioning democracy depends on a shared understanding that both sides, no matter how much they disagree, are legitimate participants in the system.
The moment that idea is tossed aside — when one side starts branding the other not as the loyal opposition but as enemies, traitors, or “scum” — democracy starts to fail.
When a president engages in this kind of language, he’s not just lashing out at critics. He’s explicitly trying to erase the legitimacy of any voice but his own.
This tactic is not original. It’s ripped from the playbooks of authoritarians throughout history.
— Hitler routinely referred to Jews, communists, and democratic socialists as “vermin” and “filth,” conditioning the German public to accept ever-increasing acts of brutality and repression.
— In Rwanda, Hutu leaders called Tutsis “cockroaches” on the radio for months before the genocide began.
— In Serbia, Slobodan Milošević labeled political opponents and ethnic minorities as “parasites” and “traitors” before launching ethnic cleansing campaigns.
Language like this isn’t about winning arguments. It’s about destroying opposition.
Trump has flirted with this disgusting sort of rhetoric for years, calling the press “the enemy of the people,” mocking disabled journalists, referring to immigrants as “animals,” and branding his political opponents as “radicals” or “traitors.”
But labeling Democrats — over 45 million American citizens — as “scum” is a different level of escalation. It’s not just name-calling. It’s a signal. A test balloon. A way of seeing how far he can go. And if there’s no consequence, he’ll go further.
What happens when a leader no longer sees himself as the president of all Americans, but only of those who worship him? What happens when one party becomes synonymous with the state, and all others are demonized?
You get systems like Vladimir Putin’s Russia, where opposition leaders are jailed, poisoned, or pushed out of windows. You get Viktor Orbán’s Hungary, where the ruling party rewrites the constitution to lock in power and crush dissent. You get a country where elections still happen, but they no longer mean anything.
Trump’s use of the word “scum” may seem like just another day in MAGA world, but it is, in fact, part of a much larger and more deliberate strategy. It’s designed to radicalize his base, to cast Democrats not as fellow Americans with different ideas but as dangerous enemies who must be defeated at all costs. It’s designed to terrify Trump’s opponents and paralyze the media.
When you convince people that the opposition is not just wrong but evil, the next logical step is to justify extraordinary actions to stop them, whether that’s purging them from government, throwing them in jail, or inciting paramilitary violence against them.
We’ve already seen where this leads.
January 6th, for example, wasn’t some spontaneous tantrum. It was the inevitable result of years of delegitimization and demonization of Democrats. The people who stormed the Capitol sincerely believed they were saving America from “scum” who had stolen the presidency. They were acting on the poisonous lie that only one side has the right to rule and that any electoral outcome that contradicts their will is illegitimate. A lie that came straight from Trump and his morbidly rich neofascist enablers.
This is how democracies die; not all at once, but in a slow, deliberate campaign of character assassination against political rivals, institutions, and the rule of law. It happens when a strongman convinces just enough people that he alone is the embodiment of the nation, and that anyone who opposes him is a threat to the country itself.
And once that belief takes root, atrocities become not just possible, but justified. And, in most cases, inevitable. We’re already seen this in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia and the Venezuelans who Trump deported to El Salvador and the Asians he deported to Africa, in both cases in defiance of court orders.
From Agustin Pinochet throwing small-d democrats he called “subversivos” and “terroristas” out of helicopters over the ocean, to Joseph Stalin using the phrase “enemy of the people” (враг народа) to describe democracy advocates, to Mao Tse Tung calling educated people monsters and demons” (牛鬼蛇神) as he killed an estimated 35 million of them, this is an old, old story.
It’s the same type of language that the Ku Klux Klan used for centuries here in America as they embarked on campaigns of terror and murder. And that the paramilitary groups that have largely replaced them in the 21st century continue to use.
It’s also important to note that when Trump calls people who didn’t vote for him “scum,” he’s not just talking about elected officials. He’s talking about more than half the country.
He’s talking about your neighbors, your coworkers, maybe your family members. He’s talking about teachers, nurses, scientists, union workers, veterans; millions of Americans who simply don’t buy into his brand of neofascist grievance politics. He’s trying to turn Americans against each other so he can seize even more power out of the chaos he creates.
This kind of dehumanization also serves a more practical political purpose: it undermines accountability. If Democrats are “scum,” then their investigations into Trump’s corruption are not legitimate. If the media is “fake news,” then any critical reporting is a hoax. If the courts rule against him, they’re “rigged.” It’s a classic authoritarian tactic: delegitimize all checks on your power and paint yourself as the sole source of truth.
In doing so, Trump is also poisoning the well for any future attempt at national unity or reconciliation.
Once you’ve labeled your opponents as subhuman, how do you work with them? How do you compromise to do what’s best for the country? You don’t.
And that’s exactly the point. He doesn’t want compromise. He wants domination. He wants a political system like in Russia or Hungary, where the only choice is himself.
We can’t afford to normalize this. We can’t laugh it off as Trump being Trump. We can’t wait and hope that someone, somewhere, will step in and draw a line. We have to be that line. We have to call this what it is: a deliberate, dangerous assault on the core of American democracy.
Words matter. In every fascist movement of the 20th century, it started with the words. Before the arrests, before the beatings, before the camps, there were the words. And in every case, those words went unchallenged until it was too late.
It’s not too late now. But we are closer than we’ve ever been. We must push back hard against this dehumanizing rhetoric, demand better from our leaders, and defend the democratic principle that every citizen, no matter their party, is entitled to dignity, voice, and full participation in the political process.
Because once a president gets away with calling fellow Americans “scum,” it’s only a matter of time before he treats them that way.
Trump is starting to lose big, from courtrooms to the press increasingly calling him out, to millions of Americans showing up in the streets every few weeks. As anybody who’s ever lived or worked in an autocratic state (I have) can tell you, a strongman or wannabe dictator is most dangerous when he’s on his back foot.
Trump’s tariffs have put America on the verge of a serious inflationary recession, the Supreme Court and multiple lower courts have repeatedly ruled against him, his public approval polling is in the crapper, and even conservative publications and former Republican politicians (free from the strictures of an upcoming primary) are openly calling him out (including in Murdoch publications).
The first lesson they teach in dictator school is that “there must be an enemy within.” Trump embraced this from the first day of his campaign for president when he attacked “Mexican rapists and murderers” he said were “invading” America.
In the years since, his enemies list has grown to include trans students, drag queens, Black protesters, Black legislators, majority-Black “s---hole countries,” teachers, colleges, scientists, public health officials, Democrats, and NATO.
The second is that “big, splashy attacks on the country are excellent opportunities to gain popularity and seize more power.”
Just ask George W. Bush.
After his brother Jeb, then governor of Florida, purged 57,000 Black voters from that state’s voter rolls, George “won” the 2000 election in that state by a mere 537 votes, which was immediately challenged in court by Al Gore's campaign. The state Supreme Court ordered a recount that, according to The New York Times, would have led to a clear Gore victory.
Meanwhile, the story of Jeb’s massive voter purge was being shared around the world by the BBC, as people realized George was an illegitimate president. His poll numbers were about as bad as they could get.
And then came 9/11. The attack on America brought the country together to support the unpopular president, kicking his popularity as measured by Gallup above 90 percent, higher than any other president in the history of polling.
Similarly, after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, then-President Bill Clinton’s approval rating jumped from below 50 percent all the way up into the 80 percent range.
And, while there wasn’t polling at the time, it’s safe to assume the same thing happened to FDR after Pearl Harbor in 1941.
Which is why the following stories, each reported independently but in aggregate reflecting a dangerous trend, are so alarming:
— Although the first two months of 2025 showed a shocking 25 percent increase in terrorism and politically-targeted violent attacks, with an average of 3 attacks a day and more than 400 people murdered by domestic terrorists during the past two years, Trump shut down 24 different projects tracking terrorist threats in the US.
— As Trump is deploying more and more federal law enforcement officers (particularly ICE) and they’re often hiding their identities and faces, he killed off the federal database that tracked federal police misconduct.
— Almost half of the nation’s FBI agents who’d been available to work on counterterrorism efforts have been ordered to drop their investigations and, instead, pursue undocumented aliens.
— The anti-terrorism Center for Prevention Programs in DHS, set up after 9/11 to prevent future terror attacks, has lost 20% of its staff and seen its mission radically scaled back.
— Multiple state-based anti-terrorism programs, funded by DHS, have been gutted or ended entirely.
— The DHS’s Domestic Radicalization and Violent Extremism Research Center has been shut down altogether.
— The CIA is laying off at least 1,200 positions, many monitoring foreign terroristic threats, “along with thousands more [employees] from other parts of the US intelligence community.”
— Trump’s proposed $545 million cut to the FBI’s budget sparked warnings that such reductions would “cripple core operations, including counterterrorism and intelligence work.”
— Trump defunded the State and Local Anti-Terrorism Training (SLATT) program, which since 1996 had trained more than 427,000 law enforcement and justice system practitioners to identify, investigate, and interdict domestic and international terrorism.
— Just last month, Trump terminated 373 different antiterrorism grants from the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs, rescinding about $500 million in remaining balances. The cuts affected antiterrorism operations in 37 states.
— Open apologists for Vladimir Putin and authoritarianism in the US are now in charge of our intelligence agencies and FBI.
At the same time, Trump appears to be preparing for the type of authoritarian crackdown Germany saw after the Reichstag fire that propelled Hitler to power in 1933.
His “Strengthening and unleashing America’s law enforcement to pursue criminals and protect innocent citizens” Executive Order explicitly lays the foundation to use our military for law enforcement operations in defiance of the Posse Comitatus laws:
“[T]he Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Attorney General, shall determine how military and national security assets, training, non-lethal capabilities, and personnel can most effectively be utilized to prevent crime.”
In 2002, Putin was facing a similar unpopularity problem in Russia; it was solved by “Chechen rebels” seizing a Moscow theater, justifying a massive crackdown that led to a massive series of arrests of dissidents, a year-long bombing campaign, and the deaths of tens of thousands of Chechens. Multiple scholars believe Putin set up the attack himself to rescue his political fortunes.
Strongman leaders are dangerous in general, but they’re particularly dangerous when their grip on popularity and thus power begins to slip.
Trump’s there now, which should put us all on high alert. And, to compound the alarm, he’s firing the people responsible for early warnings and investigations that could prevent another 9/11 or Oklahoma City-style attack.
So, if Trump is doing something similar to what it appears Benjamin Netanyahu did — ignoring multiple warnings that a massive attack was on its way in the hopes the attack will rescue his failing polling numbers and distract people from his multiple alleged crimes — how should America react if/when it happens here?
History has shown us that when autocratic leaders are cornered, they often resort to drastic measures to retain control. As we watch these ominous signs unfold, it’s imperative that we stay vigilant because, just like in other dark chapters of history, the consequences of underestimating a weakened strongman could be catastrophic for democracy itself.
Now more than ever, we must protect the institutions that hold power in check before it’s too late. And prepare ourselves for a sudden, shocking worst-case scenario.
With almost no mention by our mainstream corporate press, Republicans in the House of Representatives are proposing to end all checks on the power of Donald Trump, effectively ending the American experiment of a democratic republic. It’s shockingly anti-American.
Since the only branch of government standing against Trump right now is the courts, Republicans believe they’ve found a way to end that resistance. Here’s the backstory.
The grand invention of our founders, cribbed from the Iroquois Confederacy and following an outline Montesquieu suggested (based on his reading about Native Americans), was a three-branches-of-government system where each branch would act as a check on the power of the other two.
Article I: Congress solely controls the ability to declare war, raise taxes, and spend money; all spending and taxation must originate in the House of Representatives, and Congress also has oversight power (and the power of the purse) with regard to both the president and the Supreme Court. They can even defund either, and have the power to pass laws limiting what the courts can rule on as well as the power to limit presidential behavior.
Article II: The president has the power to appoint justices to the Supreme Court and must enforce laws Congress makes, but has considerable power to investigate members of either branch for criminal conspiracy and other illegal or even unethical behavior; the president controls the police agencies of the nation, starting with the FBI.
Article III: The Supreme Court (and its inferior courts) can restrain both Congress and the president by declaring their actions unconstitutional or in violation of existing law. Their only power other than moral persuasion — as Hamilton pointed out in Federalist 78, writing that they have “neither a sword nor a purse” — their only tool to force compliance with their orders is the power, established by law, to hold the subjects of their rulings or the people pleading them “in contempt of court,” which can lead to substantial fines or even jail time.
Right now the Trump administration is pretty clearly in contempt of at least one Supreme Court order and several from lower courts around the issue of deporting Venezuelan nationals to a brutal concentration camp in El Salvador.
Both Judge Jeb Boasberg and Judge Paula Xinis have implied that they may hold Trump’s lawyers in contempt unless they provide answers to their questions about why they’re refusing to comply with court orders.
Again, the power of contempt is the only “real” enforcement power the courts have, the only way they can make their orders stick. They can start by fining or jailing Trump’s lawyers who are standing before them, and work their way up from there all the way, arguably, to the president himself.
So far, Trump has effectively neutered Congress; there’s not a single elected Republican who’s willing to seriously challenge his questionable actions, particularly his denial of due process to foreign students and undocumented aliens.
Which leaves only the courts as a check on his power.
Which is apparently why toady Republicans in the House have inserted the following language into their “Big Brutal Bill” (as Ro Khanna calls it) that provides for trillions in tax breaks for billionaires like Trump, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, etc.:
“No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued….”
In plain language, what this says is that no court can enforce a contempt charge against Trump or his people unless the person or group who brought the charges against the president or his administration had first posted a cash bond.
So, here’s the kicker: in civil proceedings, like virtually 100 percent of the cases Trump is involved with regarding his abuse of power and refusal to acknowledge due process, there is no bond involved.
There almost never is bond in any civil cases like these, in fact.
Thus, if this becomes law, Congress will have stripped the courts — including the Supreme Court — of their ability to use the power of contempt to enforce their rulings. This is way beyond Andrew Jackson’s worst fever dreams.
Congress (Article I) has been rendered docile by virtue of primary challenges funded by Musk and other billionaires, and the (Article III) courts would be helpless by virtue of this new regulation, leaving the only branch of government with any ability to exercise its own will as the presidency (Article II).
With this single stroke, Trump will have crowned himself king. No Congress and no court can stop him. Even if Congress were to try, it would take the courts to enforce their hearings, investigations, subpoenas, and laws, and without the power of contempt the courts will have lost that ability.
As UC Berkeley School of Law Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law Erwin Chemerinsky, noted yesterday at the Just Security blog, this provision in the proposed tax law would end any restraint on Trump:
“Without the contempt power, judicial orders are meaningless and can be ignored. There is no way to understand this except as a way to keep the Trump administration from being restrained when it violates the Constitution or otherwise breaks the law …
“This would be a stunning restriction on the power of the federal courts. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the contempt power is integral to the authority of the federal courts. Without the ability to enforce judicial orders, they are rendered mere advisory opinions which parties are free to disregard.”
At the risk of restating the obvious, Chemerinsky adds:
“Of course, the question must be asked, why do Republicans now want to limit the power of the federal courts to enforce orders? The answer seems obvious: it is an effort by the Trump administration to negate one of the few checks that exist on its powers.”
Many of us have been warning for years that Trump’s end goal is to turn America from a constitutionally limited democratic republic into a naked dictatorship: this provision would do it, ending all constraints on his power.
I’ve often expressed my general agreement with both Jefferson and Lincoln that judicial review is too easily abused and the Marbury decision handed the courts more power than it should have. (See: The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America.)
But this is so far over the top as to be America-ending. It’s a shocking attempt to end the power of the courts and replace the tripartite authority of our government with a single branch led by a single man, acting as a dictator in the sense of the word as invented by the Romans two millennia ago.
There will literally be nothing that can legally stop him.
Please call your members of the House and Senate (202-224-3121), and whatever media outlets you can reach, to highlight this issue and demand that this provision be stripped from this legislation.
Lately, words haven’t come easy, my friends.
Because what more is there to say to describe all this hell?
I feel angry and helpless as this terrible torrent of ill will, lawlessness, and lies are rolling over us from the top of Capitol Hill, where a collection of pathetic weaklings have surrendered to an inadequate, America-attacking madman, and his racist cult, who are energized by nothing but hate, and a tasteless zeal to feed the rich, and punish the poor.
Lately, I have wondered what more can possibly be said to highlight a national emergency which only intensifies by the hour, as this collection of anti-Americans exact their revenge on this country’s unmitigated gall to occasionally make progress.
I suppose this is the price of caring, but it is also a lousy excuse from a writer who is paid to help make some sense out of all this madness for brave, engaged readers who deserve at least that much right now.
I mean, the Cabinet of the United States of America is a collection of the worst, most incompetent morons in history, and we are supposed to suffer through it as if it was just another cloudy day.
This throng of environmental terrorists, racists, anti-vaxxers, white supremacists, Russian puppets, and a never-ending list of toxic right-wing propagandists staff these vital positions not because of their qualifications, but for their singular ability to stroke their repulsive cult leader’s ego, to make himself feel better about his sickly condition that most likely started around the time his parents kicked him out of the house because even they couldn’t stand to be around him any longer.
My God, our morbid, puppy-killing Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem doesn’t even know what habeas corpus means. Settle on that one for a minute …
And I’ll bet you everything in my dwindling retirement account, which has been plundered by these idiotic tariffs, that fully half the people in that revolting cabinet don’t know the significance of habeas corpus either, including the convicted felon they work for, who could care less about it.
Think too hard about this, and it can shatter you.
Just yesterday alone, the rust-orange wannabe king hosted South African President Cyril Ramaphosa at the White House with the sole intent of verbally assaulting the man with racist lies and venom, as a public nod to his sickly funder, Elon Musk, and his white nationalist base. This was out of the same odious Birther playbook that Trump pulled with Barack Obama starting in 2011, to garner the attention and undivided love of the millions of nauseating Christo-Fascists, who currently lead the Republican Party.
It was a grotesque scene, and an obvious racist dog whistle to the right — though I couldn’t find it covered that directly in any of my likely sources in our broken, corporate media, who have effortlessly normalized bigotry.
Speaking of which … are we EVER going to stop hearing from this sanctimonious sap, Jake Tapper, who is being handed one microphone after another to tout his under-sourced, overhyped book, which is treating Joe Biden’s decision to run for president in 2024, as somehow remotely comparable to Trump’s refusal to accept the results of the 2020 election and his subsequent violent attack on our country and attempt to overthrow the government?
While damn near everything we hold dear is under attack AGAIN, Tapper and the mainstream media have completely lost the thread and are now trying to strangle us with it.
He (they) need to just shut the f––k up.
And this: Anybody who buys this book needs to have their head examined, and have officially become part of the problem.
Then there’s the Republican-controlled House led by the mealy-mouthed “Moses” Mike Johnson that just passed a budget that would make Jesus Christ faint. This lurid package of cruelty will steal from the poor so they can reward their rich overlords with handsome tax breaks.
It is gruesome, mean, and if passed by the Senate will also saddle the country with trillions of dollars of debt, because all that crap about “fiscal responsibility” they claim to care so damn much about is just that: CRAP.
So … with all that creeping around my wrecked mind this morning, I was cracking away at the daily newspaper and mainlining my third cup of coffee — I can probably count the number of decent nights' sleep I’ve had since Nov. 8, 2016, on one hand — I actually came across a story that so delighted me, I simply had to share it with you.
With the tsunami of terrible news coming out of D.C., I think all of us patriots should selfishly dine on this story today out of Wisconsin.
You might remember that with control of our Supreme Court on the line here last month, Musk was throwing his money and all his bullshit around like a racist car salesman on a ketamine bender.
He was buying votes, and nonstop touting Republicans’ crooked party line. He was riding high after helping to topple Democrats in our national election, and was doing his damndest to ensure his party’s disease infested Wisconsin for good.
Except he was stopped dead in his tracks when voters in this battleground state, where statewide elections are almost always decided by razor-thin margins, stomped his candidate out by a remarkable, 55%-45% margin.
It wasn’t close, though I’d like to personally thank him for doing his best to stimulate our fading economy by leaving $20 million of his ill-gained money in my state.
Now Musk says he’s going away and surrendering, and will spend less time on elections and more time on his failing businesses.
You can’t believe a word he says, of course, but you also can’t overstate the epic ass-kicking we put on his GOP up here in an election Musk himself said, "could determine the fate of Western civilization.”
Well, as fate would have it, we aren’t dead yet, and people like me would be well-served to remember that, as hard as it can be sometimes …
Now, on to the next fight!
(D. Earl Stephens is the author of “Toxic Tales: A Caustic Collection of Donald J. Trump’s Very Important Letters” and finished up a 30-year career in journalism as the Managing Editor of Stars and Stripes. You can find all his work here, and follow him on Bluesky here.)
As soon as it became clear that Donald Trump would win the 2024 election, I braced myself for an onslaught of bad-faith, blame-Democrats-first narratives — from Kamala Harris supporters.
Despite the sea change in power (courtesy of our winner-take-all electoral system), the election was close.
Trump won with a meager 31.7% of eligible voters. Unlike Barack Obama and Joe Biden, he failed to get a majority of those who did vote.
Holding the Senate was an impossible task because Democrats held contested seats in three deep-red states (West Virginia, Ohio, and Montana). But Democrats won four out of five swing-state Senate races (Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin) and fought Republicans to a draw in the House.
In short, the 2024 election was not a mandate.
But that didn’t stop media charlatans from denouncing the Democrats.
Ruy Teixeira, a once-progressive opinion writer who has spent decades in elite Beltway think tanks, said, “The Democrats really are no longer the party of the common man and woman. The priorities and values that dominate the party today are instead those of educated, liberal America which only partially overlap — and sometimes not at all — with those of ordinary Americans.”
TV host Bill Maher, who’d said he was certain Harris would win, said Harris lost because of an article in Scientific American that purportedly trafficked in “wokeness.”
The implication is that the Democratic Party is out of touch with everyday people.
This is a nifty little self-defense mechanism for Democrats who aren’t willing to see the MAGA social pathology for what it is.
Shifting blame to “the politicians” or “the consultants” in the Democratic Party gives a get-out-of-jail-free card to relatives and neighbors and co-workers who are handmaidens to fascism (however unwittingly).
Alienation from people one interacts with, or is intertwined with, is avoided through denial. No messiness. No compartmentalization. Plaster on a fake smile and call it a day.
The purveyors of blame-Democrats-first narratives, most of whom have never so much as run for student council, suffer the conceit that they have more insight into winning strategies than Harris’s senior campaign advisor, David Plouffe, who managed Obama’s 2008 landslide win.
The assertion that Trump won because of Democratic failures rests on the notion that voters are rational actors.
The major impact of uncontrollable events (economic cycles, COVID, foreign interference, foreign crises, the frames the media chooses to hype) is minimized in favor of the theory that if Candidate A just uses the right messaging, they can appeal to voters’ innate goodness and high-minded desire to do the right thing by their fellow citizens. Easy peasy.
In addition to being a naïve view of human nature, this belief has little relevance to the 2024 election because Harris ran a pretty effective campaign.
Her rollout was smooth and surprised the Trump campaign.
She consolidated party support quickly.
The Democrats had an energetic and unified convention that aggressively targeted working voters.
Harris vivisected Trump in the debate he didn’t chicken out of.
She raised tons of money for ads and organizing, had a much bigger (in-house) field operation, blanketed swing states, and had her political surrogates do the same.
Harris downplayed her race and gender and picked a gun-toting, white male everyman veteran as her VP so as not to threaten moderate white voters.
She mitigated Trump’s false messaging on immigration by actively endorsing a bipartisan plan co-authored by Republican senator James Lankford.
She mitigated Trump’s false messaging on crime by casting the election as a choice between a felon and a prosecutor.
While Trump closed the campaign by fellating a microphone, ending a town hall meeting to dance for 39 minutes, and hosting a pre-election Madison Square Garden event rife with racial slurs and echoes of an infamous 1939 pro-Nazi rally, Harris went through the whole campaign without a substantial gaffe.
The most obvious explanation for Harris’ loss, the one the media ignores for fear of sacrificing eyeballs (and more importantly, dollars), is that tens of millions of American voters are bigoted and/or politically illiterate.
We no longer live in a Lincoln-Douglas debate nation, where civic-minded audiences patiently listen to nuanced three-hour arguments about substantive issues.
We live in a country with a long history of anti-intellectualism where the average IQ is 98 and 54% of our citizens ages 16 to 74 read below a sixth-grade level.
We live in a country of short attention spans, shrinking sound bites, stuporous consumerism, and cellphone-clutching zombies.
We live in a country where students at elite universities whine about reading requirements.
We live in a country with mass disinformation funnels that systematically weaponize ignorance by spoon-feeding lies and distortions 24-7 through Newsmax, Fox, One America News, Sinclair Broadcasting, right-wing radio, the Daily Caller, Breitbart, social media, the Manosphere, and a zillion other platforms.
We live in a country where a critical mass of our citizens is divorced from objective reality.
37% of Americans believe the earth was created in the last 10,000 years and one in five still believe in Biblical literalism.
One in four religious voters believe that a man found liable for sexual abuse, who cheated on his first wife with his second wife, his second wife with his third wife, and his third wife with a porn star, unprotected, was “chosen by God.” Never mind his 34 felony convictions and multi-million-dollar civil penalties for business fraud.
America has the highest per capita fossil fuel consumption in the world, but the very existence of climate change — which threatens human civilization — is denied by 28% of our citizens. 42% of Americans don’t even grasp the direct role human activity plays in rising CO2 levels, which has been public knowledge for four decades.
Our president is so hostile to the scientific method that 75% of scientists in a recent Nature magazine poll said they were open to leaving the U.S.
In such a country, where half of adults can’t name all three branches of government, the average voter has little understanding of how a bill becomes law or how their representative votes day in and day out. They don’t know what’s happening in D.C. beyond headlines, let alone how it’s happening, why it’s happening, obstacles legislation will face in the courts, or the full human impacts of a law once it is implemented.
In this environment of widespread political illiteracy, many voters shrink complicated issues down to oversimplistic, shorthand impressions — vibes or feelings — instead of using rational, evidence-based analysis.
This was clear in the way voters viewed the economy, the decisive issue in the 2024 election.
As happened across much of the world during the tumult of COVID, many voters wrongly assumed that correlation is causation, that incumbent governments were automatically to blame for the state of the economy.
While Biden was president, inflation rose 21.2%, the steepest increase since the oil shocks of the ’70s and early ’80s. Yet inflation barely outpaced wage growth, which was 19.4% during the same period.
Republicans claimed Biden’s stimulus spending was a major driver of inflation, but this was speculation, not hard fact. Mainstream economists feel that Biden’s deficit spending — which was roughly half of Trump’s — may have moved things around the margins, but not to a large degree.
U.S. President Joe Biden, flanked by U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
And even if Biden deserved some blame for inflation, it’s clear that he inherited a no-win situation. If he had failed to pump enough stimulus into the economy, he could have been blamed for a slow recovery, as Obama was. Republicans handed Biden a shit sandwich and then complained about the flavor.
What’s objectively undeniable is that inflation was a worldwide phenomenon caused by COVID-driven supply-chain disruptions (and potentially some degree of corporate greed).
And U.S. inflation rates were within the norms of our G20 allies.
And America had a quicker rebound and higher job growth than developed world peers, the lowest unemployment in over 50 years, and wage growth has been higher than inflation since February 2023.
And these conditions especially benefited Ruy Teixeira’s common man and woman, who had the biggest jumps in pay they’d experienced since the ’90s dot-com boom.
The rebound was so vigorous that just prior to the election, Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal said that the U.S. economy was “the envy of the world,” a huge turnaround from four years prior, when America experienced record job losses on Trump’s watch.
Despite the above facts, and Democratic presidents significantly outperforming Republicans economically over several decades, a majority of Americans felt Trump would do a better job of managing the economy than Harris.
By this convoluted logic, Trump deserved credit for the record sustained growth he inherited from Obama and no blame for losing 22 million jobs, while Biden (and Harris, by extension) received no credit for presiding over an economy that was “the envy of the world” and shouldered the blame for pandemic-related inflation that was experienced worldwide.
The disconnect, as with so many in American politics, is rooted in ignorance.
Democratic data guru David Shor’s firm, Blue Rose, conducted 26 million interviews in 2024. Shor found that less-engaged voters were most likely to blame Harris for inflation and gas prices. Shor also discovered that low-information voters on Tik Tok swung 8% more Republican than in 2020 and “politically-disengaged” voters swung 14 points to Republicans. (They continue to support Trump in the highest numbers.)
In a podcast interview with New York Times columnist Ezra Klein, Shor pointed out that many self-described moderates without college degrees suffered from cognitive dissonance (holding contradictory views without realizing it).
Broad misunderstandings of the economy are of a piece with a feeling among many working-class stiffs — white ones especially — that Republicans better represent their interests.
Recent history definitively proves otherwise.
Other than one-term George Bush, Sr., every Republican president of the last 45 years has followed a trickle-down template: slash social services for our most vulnerable citizens, including disabled children; lavish lucrative subsidies on highly-profitable defense contractors; give the most privileged Americans huge tax cuts; and toss in a helping of union-busting.
The GOP has done very little to address steep increases in the costs of health care, education, childcare, or housing during this time, even when they’ve controlled the White House and both houses of Congress.
By contrast, Democratic presidents Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden focused heavily on cost-of-living issues. All three were endlessly filibustered by Senate Republicans, forcing Democrats to abandon economic reform or water it down enough to secure every Democratic Senate vote necessary for passage.
Unable to get broad-based change due to factors beyond their control, Democrats were painted as ineffective, which fed public misperceptions about the major parties’ stark differences in priorities.
In other words, Teixeira’s claim that “the Democrats really are no longer the party of the common man and woman” gets it backward.
The Democrats are in fact the only party representing the economic interests of the common man and woman.
The Biden presidency offers the most recent example of this long-term trend.
Biden stood up for everyday people by staffing federal agencies with consumer advocates, supporting net neutrality, taking on Big Tech and other monopolies, going after junk fees, reducing student loan debt, extending the COVID-era eviction moratorium, increasing the minimum wage for federal workers, and being arguably the most pro-union president in decades.
The first big bill Biden signed, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, helped struggling state and local governments push through the then-raging COVID pandemic, put $1,400 in the pocket of 85% of Americans, greatly expanded access to healthcare coverage (including mental health and substance abuse treatment), lowered healthcare and prescription drug costs, and cut child poverty by 30 percent.
The American Rescue Plan Act passed without a single Republican vote.
The second consequential measure Biden signed, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, pumps over a trillion dollars into roads, bridges, highways, the electric grid, public transit, and broadband access for rural areas that didn’t back Biden. The Economic Policy Institute estimated that the bill would support 772,000 jobs per year for its first decade, in both red and blue states.
The third big bill Biden signed, the CHIPS and Science Act, shores up our industrial base by investing $280 billion in domestic manufacturing of semiconductors, STEM workforce development, and research and development. The bill helps both rural and urban constituencies and provides a boost to non-degreed Americans with the requisite skills.
The fourth major bill Biden signed, the Inflation Reduction Act, lowered prescription drug prices, funded Affordable Care Act subsidies for three years to keep rates down, and provided a record investment in clean energy production — and with it, manufacturing jobs.
The Inflation Reduction Act received unanimous support from Democrats but not a single Republican vote, despite the fact that Republican districts received most of the benefits. (Eighteen House Republicans begged Speaker Mike Johnson not to repeal it.)
The Inflation Reduction Act was part of Biden’s much bigger Build Back Better Plan, which would have capped childcare costs, expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit for working Americans, created over a million public housing units, removed barriers to union organizing, expanded Medicaid eligibility, increased homecare for the elderly and guaranteed homecare workers a decent wage, and funded universal preschool, two free years of community college, and paid family and medical leave.
Biden’s achievements were of such a grand scale that he was ranked among the top 15 presidents in a poll of presidential scholars, 31 slots ahead of Trump (who was dead last). Because of this sensei-level governance, the longshot odds of beating Biden in a primary, and Biden’s general election polling relative to potential primary opponents, no viable Democrats stepped up to challenge him in 2024.
Meanwhile, helped along by a media obsessed with the president’s age, Ruy Teixeira’s common man and woman rewarded Biden for his tireless efforts on their behalf by running him out on a rail in favor of a right-wing billionaire guaranteed to make their lives tangibly worse.
Republicans have been getting the votes of working stiffs while screwing them economically ever since the Civil Rights Act passed. The “modern” GOP continues to manipulate the amygdalae of blue-collar voters with hot-button issues that have exactly zero impact on their daily lives.
This was echoed in Shor’s finding that a sizable number of working-class voters in the States are “values voters,” not unlike working-class voters in other developed countries.
In plain English this means that when faced with rapid social and technological change, many human beings who haven’t been forced to open their minds through the college experience lurch toward prejudice.
Study after study after study after study after study showed that Trump owed his 2016 “victory” in large part to dehumanizing racist and sexist appeals. He used the same tactics in 2024.
Though he lost to a white man who barely campaigned in 2020, Trump beat two women who were vastly more qualified for the job — the second after he ended the right to choose and made women second-class citizens in most of red America.
Protesters outside the U.S. Supreme Court. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
Much has been made of the Democrats’ supposed “wokeness.” Apparently some Americans — especially men — feel that they shouldn’t have to be thoughtful toward populations who’ve historically been discriminated against and continue to be discriminated against. This ties in with so-called “cancel culture,” where people who publicly state unpopular opinions are marginalized.
In the same vein, red state Republicans get their hackles up about Critical Race Theory (CRT), which acknowledges the role centuries of institutional racism play in current socioeconomic outcomes.
To the extent that “wokeness” and “cancel culture” exist, don’t hold your breath trying to find even one (1) example of a “woke” piece of legislation signed into law by Joe Biden that negatively impacts Americans without a degree, or a single instance of Democrats pushing CRT at the national level.
Another phantasm the Trump campaign got a lot of mileage out of with “values voters” was the specter of trans Americans.
Apparently, having to occasionally try to make other people comfortable in their own skin by addressing them with preferred pronouns is a major imposition on one’s “freedom,” or self-expression, or something.
And nothing is so threatening to the common man and woman as trans athletes. Of the 500,000 athletes in college sports, fewer than 10 identify as trans. Unless you are one of the teeny, tiny percentage of people competing against a trans athlete, or the parent of one of these people, you have zero skin in the game.
None.
Republican plays to bigotry also explain their fixation on illegal immigration.
Amplifying fears of brown hordes coming across the border into land we stole from Mexico in 1848 is the gift that keeps on giving for the GOP.
Yes, illegal immigration is a problem throughout parts of the Southwest U.S.
But it’s a complex problem and many Republican talking points are dubious if not patently false.
Evidence that immigrants “steal American jobs” is thin.
Immigrants don’t drain taxpayer benefits. Immigrants contribute more to the economy than they take in and tend not to apply for benefits due to a lack of awareness about available programs and a desire to stay out of the way.
Illegal immigrant voter fraud is “vanishingly rare.” Any reasonably intelligent person could deduce that people who are in the country illegally aren’t going to risk deportation to vote.
Just as the Trump campaign falsely claimed Democrats had wanted to “defund the police” and lied about the extent of crime at the national level (though the federal government has no purview over local law enforcement), he ramped up fury over a “migrant crime wave” that had little basis in reality.
The race-baiting, lies, and distortions were compounded by the fact that far-right Republicans are the reason border problems continue.
If Ruy Teixeira’s common man and woman paid attention to legislative battles, they would know that bipartisan immigration reform bills were sabotaged three times by nativist Republicans.
In 2007, right-wing Republicans killed a bipartisan bill which was supported by most Democrats and many conservative Republicans, including President George W. Bush.
In 2014, after Obama’s bipartisan immigration bill passed the Senate, it was deep-sixed by House Republicans.
Last year, when Biden and many Democrats swallowed their misgivings to support a punitive immigration reform bill co-authored by James Lankford, the far-right Republican senator from Oklahoma, Trump convinced congressional Republicans to kill the bill on false pretenses so immigration would be a potent issue in the presidential campaign.
As with their decades of obstruction on economic reform, the GOP reliably follows a simple formula with immigration reform: block, blame shift, weaponize. Keep positive change from happening, lie about why the problem continues, and capitalize on the public’s frustration (and ignorance) when it continues to fester.
Rinse and repeat.
The endless thinking errors and logical fallacies exploited by the GOP’s massive disinformation ecosystem combine with a long list of built-in advantages Republicans bring to every election cycle: gerrymandering, the rural tilt of the Senate, intentionally-racist GOP voter suppression laws, an electorate that is 71% white and 25% evangelical white, bothsidesism among legacy media that normalizes the MAGA social pathology, the right- and white-wing bias of the electoral college, and lingering animosity toward the federal government in one (heavily-subsidized) region of the country that lost a war defending slavery.
Between all of this and homophobia, racism, misogyny, transphobia, and an American culture of individualism which often manifests in cruelty, it’s a wonder Democrats came as close as they did in 2024.
Frankly, it’s a wonder Democrats ever win.
For all the finger-pointing directed at Democrats for being “terrible at messaging” or out of touch with “real Americans,” the reality is that the number of truly persuadable voters is small and shrinking.
And for forward-thinking messaging to work: 1) major media would have to pivot to policy-based coverage; 2) low-information persuadables would have to have a desire to learn; 3) low-information persuadables would have to act on their desire to learn while knowing how to access valid information, having the capacity to understand what they’re taking in, having the capacity to contextualize the information, and actually getting off their butts to vote.
Good luck with that.
U.S. federal politics is a big, burly, anarchic beast. Stars like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama can’t be manufactured. They’re unusually charismatic figures (and men, which helps) who ran at very opportune moments: during recessions when the opposing party had the White House and candidates who didn’t inspire the base.
Savvy messaging, slick re-branding, and smart campaign tactics can move things around the margins, but so long as America has such a high concentration of bigoted, distracted, misinformed, and uninformed voters, expect one close election (and many gravely disappointing ones) after another.
We have met the enemy, and he is us.
Dan Benbow has been an online political features writer since 2003. His work has appeared at RawStory, the Miami Herald, the New York Daily News, Salon, Truthout, and the Progressive. He is currently seeking representation for his first novel and can be reached at benbowauthor@gmail.com and followed @danbenbow on BlueSky.
Sometimes, all this is just too damn much to take.
Sometimes, just the thought of the grotesque Donald Trump being in the vicinity of the United States of America much less our White House makes me shake with rage ...
So when I read on Saturday morning that the revolting, America-attacking wretch had given the commencement address to our cadets at West Point, my heart began beating with a runaway rage.
I saw red.
I pulled myself away from my desk and tried to compose myself.
Then I returned and started typing, because when I saw this vile coward used this grotesque visit to honor himself, I decided a few things needed saying ...
This hideous man … his childish, red, made-in-China hat pulled tight over the dead ferret he tapes to his head each day, spent this morning lying to these cadets, and the world, about all he is doing for them, while benefits to veterans like myself and millions of others are being jeopardized, so he can repay billionaires and fascists like Vladimir Putin who helped lift his two-ton, lying ass into office.
Trump needs to stay far away from our military, and closer to all those fawning suckers he cheats on and berates on his golf courses.
Instead, he actually said this out loud to impressionable young men and women today, who enlisted to defend this country not burn it down:
“And you will become officers of the greatest and most powerful army the world has ever known. And I know, because I rebuilt that army, and I rebuilt the military. And we rebuilt it like nobody has ever rebuilt it before in my first term.”
My God …
This orange lowlife has done nothing but DISGRACE that army. He doesn’t know a single, damn thing about army values, navy values, or ANY values, because the only thing he truly values — the only thing he has EVER valued — is himself.
As a sailor, who read Stars and Stripes newspaper in the 1970s, and then became the managing editor of that great, editorially independent newspaper many years later, I had the honor of being a part of our military, and understand it, and them, better than that ghastly, country club bully ever will.
Morally busted lowlifes like Trump are the enemy of that culture, not the example.
He has NEVER had what it takes to serve his country, because above all, he is a liar and a coward, who uses America as his personal ATM.
The fact is, he is an America-attacking draft-dodger, who has called our fallen "suckers and losers" and did nothing for three hours while law enforcement officers in uniform were stomped to near death during the worst attack on our Capitol since 1812.
He could have called in the National Guard in minutes to stop that January 6th attack, but didn't for one reason, and one reason only: He was hoping it would prevail.
He has belittled true heroes like the late John McCain, and disgraced Arlington National Cemetery more times than I can count. He did nothing after the professional propagandist he chose to lead our military shared stop-secret information on his cell phone to God knows who, jeopardizing countless lives in our military that he alleges he cares so much about.
This dangerous bullshit that he somehow loves our country or our military needs TO STOP RIGHT NOW.
He provably hates both.
He loves our country like an arsonist loves a burning house.
Duty, honor, country?
Give me a damn break. He doesn't have even the foggiest idea of what these things truly mean.
He can go straight to hell.
I SPIT ON HIM.
(D. Earl Stephens is the author of “Toxic Tales: A Caustic Collection of Donald J. Trump’s Very Important Letters” and finished up a 30-year career in journalism as the Managing Editor of Stars and Stripes. You can find all his work here, and follow him on Bluesky here.)
Anyone who has ever loved a dog intuits the unfathomable cruelty of isolating a dog and leaving him on a chain for his entire life. Anyone who has ever lived next door to a hopeful puppy brought home to its new life on a chain, or in a kennel, knows the heart-wrenching sound of a puppy who cries, and cries, and cries, until it doesn’t. This practice, cruel and inhumane as it is, still happens all over the country.
My personal experience with animal abuse has been primarily in Gary, Indiana, a city I lived in and loved for 25 years. As an anti-cruelty advocate, I lobbied the city for several years to adopt tethering restrictions so that dogs would not be left outside 24 hours a day. It was finally outlawed in 2019.
Although it’s now illegal in Gary and many other cities to leave a dog on a chain for life, enforcement remains a problem. It costs nothing — literally zero — to bring a dog inside from the cold, so in 2022, I went back to the Gary council for another three minutes at the podium, to urge them to do a better job enforcing the city’s anti-cruelty ordinance.
My three minutes were spent at the Subcommittee on Public Safety, a public meeting duly noticed and recorded. After I reviewed the statistics and asked the city to appropriate funds to spay and neuter, I got to the part about people in Gary who chain their dog or dogs 24/7. I knew for a fact that one of council members did that to her own dog.
In my plea, I told the council people were leaving the city because of unaddressed animal cruelty. No concerned parent wants their kid or kids to see cruelty on display in the yard next door. There’s plenty of research proving that exposing youth to animal cruelty has real-life consequences. It’s also proven that teaching at-risk youth compassion for animals leads to more resilience, better cognition, and can help lead them away from gangs and crime.
My statement about residents leaving Gary because of animal cruelty prompted the committee chairman, Clorius Lay, to racialize it. He interrupted me to announce that only white people care about animal abuse, and did I know that Gary, Indiana was a Black city?
It’s true: Gary is a Black-run city. The entire time I lived there, all three mayors were African American. Today, like when I addressed the public safety committee, 100% of the city council members are Black, something I considered a feature, not a bug.
To be clear, what Lay said was objectively false. Many wonderful animal advocates in Gary and around the country are Black. Most of the people in Gary who still send me cellphone photos of abuse, pleading for help because the city won’t respond, are Black. The co-chair of the Gary Animal Coalition, a local radio personality, was also Black.
But that’s not the point.
The enduring takeaway, the one I keep returning to as I watch Donald Trump’s appallingly racist attacks on DEI, universities and Black elected officials, is that an arrogant, proud and determined lack of diversity leads to ignorance, hubris and awful government.
Gary’s population dropped from a high of 180,000 in the 1960s to 67,000 today. In February, Gary’s current mayor, Eddie Melton, was interviewed by The New Yorker, and he emphasized that the city couldn’t afford to lose any more people.
Like most mayors, Melton is focused on attracting investments, removing blight, and fighting crime. But like a short-sighted president who doesn’t understand the value of soft power, Melton doesn’t seem to understand that soft and easy issues — low-hanging fruit like enforcing anti-cruelty laws — can go a long way toward compensating for other city deficits.
Running a steel-mill city with a diminished tax base, in a state controlled by Republicans, is challenging, and if the city keeps hemorrhaging residents, the challenge will get even steeper. I have told Melton, like I told Mayor Jerome A. Prince before him (a kind public servant with a heart of gold, though I fell out with him over anti-cruelty issues as well) that I personally knew dozens of residents who left the city over its failure to step up on anti-cruelty.
One such resident was a former city attorney. Over 10 years, Linda Burton was an attorney for the City of Gary and served as a Deputy Prosecutor for the county, where she prosecuted animal cruelty cases. Abusers would be brought to municipal court on heinous cruelty charges (think dogs starved in crates) only to be let go without a slap. The courts don’t even use a cruelty tracking system to attach a “Do not adopt” label on animal offenders.
“Gary,” Burton said, “is a town with no pity when it comes to animals.”
Despite working for years to improve anti-cruelty, Burton couldn’t get the city to take it seriously either. Cruelty next door — her neighbor left a short hair Cane Corso in a tin shed for days when he travelled, even when it was 10F — was the main reason she and her family finally left the city.
I don’t think either mayor believed that so many people left Gary because of animal cruelty: with bigger problems in Gary like crime, who would think the suffering dog next door would be the catalyst? But it has been, and it is, and it was the reason I, too, finally left the city I loved two years ago.
As a former member of the Animal Law Committee of the American Bar Association, I’m sad to report that some legislators actually try to block anti-cruelty efforts, especially when farming and pharmaceuticals are involved. The bad news is that, nationwide, hundreds of thousands of dogs still live their lives chained outside 24/7, regardless of temperature. The good news is that animal organizations are fighting for them. Humane World for Animals, ASPCA, and PETA exist to fight animal cruelty. Please donate whatever you can.
There’s also a new-ish PAC dedicated to electing officials committed to anti-cruelty. The Animal Protection PAC was established to hold elected officials who fail to prioritize animal welfare accountable, and to support animal welfare champions. The goal of the Animal Protection PAC is to build a “grassroots movement to raise money and fund the campaigns of animal champions to combat the deluge of special interest money (like animal-testing cosmetics) they face.”
I’m aware that some will perceive this missive as racist, but let me be clear: it’s not just Black neighborhoods where dogs live outside for life. JD Vance, uttering a rare truth, has described hillbillies with underfed dogs on chains. Anyone who has spent time in poor or rural areas has seen the same thing.
Steve Schmidt writes: “Among the greatest challenges facing America is being able to talk about race openly, honestly and realistically without fear of instant cultural annihilation and backlash.” I observed this first hand in Gary, from white people afraid to speak out about animal abuse, for fear they’d be called racist.
I don’t have any such fear, and I reject the soft racism of refusing to hold Black officials accountable. So let me state openly, honestly and plainly as a DEI supporter and anti-cruelty advocate: Gary, Indiana, and other cities like it, will never thrive until they fix their animal cruelty problem.
Sabrina Haake is a 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. Her columns are found @ Alternet, Chicago Tribune, Howey Political Report, Indiana Democrats’ Kernel of Truth, Inside Indiana Business, MSN, Out South Florida, Raw Story, Salon, Smart News, South Florida Gay News, State Affairs, and Windy City Times. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.
I’m going to make a confession in this introduction to my interview with Jennifer Mercieca, a professor of communication and journalism at Texas A&M. Here it is: I have lost so much trust in democracy that I don’t know how to rebuild trust in democracy. She says that “anyone who supports democracy should work to build trust between people, and between people and the government,” and I just don’t know.
I mean, I used to have faith. Since the conclusion of Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial for the crimes of mutiny and insurrection, I had felt pretty confident that in 2024 most people most of the time could tell the difference between a sandwich and a shit sandwich, and I was pretty confident they could do that, because they already had.
Now, after only months of his second presidency, polls are showing majorities of people, including those who voted for him, don’t like what he’s doing, even though he’s doing what he said he was going to do. At the same time, my liberal brethren are pointing to these same polls as a proof of the tide turning against Trump, seemingly overlooking the implication that hope for democracy rests in the hands of people for whom the future will never come and yesterday never happened.
That said, my interview with Professor Mercieca does rekindle some faith, especially by pointing out that we live in a time of information overload. Everything everywhere seems to happen all at once. In that context, Trump tells a story that “scary outsiders are doing scary things and you should be scared!” Liberals, she said, need to tell a counter-narrative, one that works against the grain of that story.
That I can trust. The good work. The good people. May it be so.
JS: Trump says things to suggest he’s the Big Man in charge. Then, sometimes in the same breath, he says he’s not responsible. The Kilmar Abrego Garcia case, for instance. How does the fascist square that?
JM: This is an apparent contradiction, but is easily resolved when you understand that fascist leaders are unaccountable or “cognitively irresponsible” leaders. That means they want to rule over others without being questioned about the success or failure of their policies. They don’t want citizens or media to question their authority or their decisions. They want “because I said so” to end any conversation. So Trump represents himself as all-powerful, but also has many strategies to deflect responsibility so his decisions cannot be questioned.
JS: The electorate voted for the Big Man, but now at least one poll suggests a majority sees him as a “dangerous dictator.” All of this was obvious. Were the founders right to be skeptical of democracy?
JM: I wouldn’t conclude that Trump’s re-election tells us much about the appropriateness of democracy as a form of government or whether the founders were right. They lived in a very slow media environment and they were generally skeptical that the public could get enough information to make good decisions.
Our problem is the opposite, of course. Living in a world with too much information allows propagandists like Trump to manipulate reality. Also, it was very easy to believe that Trump wouldn’t do the things he promised he would do. When he said that he’d be a “dictator on day one,” folks either didn’t believe him, or thought someone or some institution would stop him, or wanted him to be a dictator to solve what they saw as urgent problems. Probably that last group (rightwing authoritarian voters) still support Trump and are happy with his presidency so far.
JS: I have said we’re in a transition, as we were in the 1970s. Back then, it was between the liberal consensus (New Deal, Great Society) and the conservative consensus (Ronald Reagan, neoliberalism). You have also said as much. How do you see it?
JM: Governments around the world are backsliding from stable democracies to authoritarianism. According to V-Dem data, the world is down to levels of democracy not seen since the 1980s, nearly three quarters of the world’s population now live in autocracies. So we live in an era of democratic collapse.
We also live in an era of climate catastrophe. And an era of massive societal changes in migration, the economy and communication. These things are related because when things are unstable people look for stability and believe the promises of “strong leaders” who claim they will restore order. Autocrats take advantage of vulnerabilities, and right now we’re vulnerable — in the US and around the world.
JS: I think it is useful to think about Trump in terms of Big Man theory (the Leviathan, as you said recently). The crisis facing democracy seems to be that that’s what Americans want. What do liberals do in your view to fight against that?
JM: Rightwing authoritarians (RWAs) are a significant portion of the electorate (some scholars estimate 35-40 percent of people), but they’re not always “activated” — meaning they don’t always use the RWA framework to think about politics.
When RWA are activated, they look to a “strong leader” who promises to restore stability and protect them. These authoritarian “strong leaders” use fear-appeals, outrage-bait and other strategies to cultivate the appearance of instability. These leaders thrive on distrust, cynicism and frustration in a political community and use strategies to try to make all of those democracy-threatening conditions worse. Anyone who supports democracy should work to build trust between people and between people and the government. That doesn’t mean denying that problems exist. It means solving problems and demonstrating trustworthiness.
One more thing. Authoritarianism works because it’s a compelling story: scary outsiders are doing scary things and you should be scared! Unfortunately, fear-appeals work. They hijack our ability to think critically and scare us into submission. Liberals and friends of democracy need to tell a different story, but one that is also compelling. That story needs to unite the nation in a common goal and affirm human dignity. I don’t think “fight fascism” or “fight Trump” are the kinds of messages that can reach tuned-out Americans. They might respond to a positive story about America’s future that moves us past identity and cultural issues and talks about how to solve the big structural problems that affect us.
The world is watching in disbelief as the president of the United States goes full Aryan. After coaxing Black and brown voters into his tent, Donald Trump loaded a gun, trained it at their heads, and blocked the exits.
Trump’s racism surprises exactly no one, but his unprecedented aggression in arresting a Black member of Congress and sending brown migrants to prison without legal process hints at real strategy from an administration otherwise known for incompetence.
Political writers often quip that Trump’s racial animus is performative: red meat thrown to a carnivorous base, a little candy to keep MAGA extremists standing back and standing by. Plus, daily outrage keeps media focus where Trump wants it: on him.
But Trump is not just feeding and entertaining his base, he’s simultaneously trying to goad Democrats — racial minorities in particular — into violence. He’s deliberately trying to incite race riots in the streets, complete with looting and mayhem, as predicate to martial law.
In late March, Trump’s Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem, put on full makeup and a push-up bra to pose as jailer at a human zoo in El Salvador. She stood in front of brown human props caged in forever cells “stuffed to the rafters,” even though the vast majority of them have never been convicted of a crime.
Trump wants to boot 20 million brown and Black immigrants out of the country with no thought of the resulting labor shortage he’s creating for farmers, construction, and health care providers. He asked El Salvadorean dictator Nayib Bukele to build additional gulags for that purpose, and, in the meantime, has begun sending migrants to South Sudan, a country where they have no ties. On Wednesday, another judge found that Trump violated another federal court order by deporting brown migrants, without legal process, to a country so dangerous the State Department warns people not to set foot there.
Against this backdrop of staged cruelty toward migrants and refugees of color, Trump crafted a deliberate race-based contrast, by welcoming a “small subset” of other immigrants: white Afrikaners. Embracing the same racist minority that led South Africa's brutal apartheid regime, to whom Elon Musk has family ties, Trump is institutionalizing racial preference while also endorsing the racist violence of apartheid.
If welcoming white Afrikaners wasn’t enough to punctuate the memo, Trump ambushed South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in the Oval Office, showing a social media video distorted to support claims of an ongoing “genocide” against white farmers in Ramaphosa’s country.
After both presidents were seated, Trump dimmed the lights to show dramatic footage of a row of crosses, claiming, “These are the — these are burial sites right here … Each one of those white things you see is a cross. And there's approximately a thousand of them. They're all white farmers, the family of white farmers … Those people are all killed.”
Trump’s bogus video was instantly and widely refuted. Those crosses weren’t grave markers of murdered white farmers; they were placed along the road as part of a political protest over the apparent murder of two farmers at their home, not a thousand, back in 2020. Trump also showed an image he said was from South Africa but was actually from the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Trump knows that 45% of the country will never hear that refutation, as Fox News praised the meeting and video, amplifying Trump’s false claims of white genocide to gin up racial hatred among white MAGA supporters.
Trump is also flexing unconstitutional muscle to intimidate Black officials. Two weeks ago, ICE agents arrested Newark’s Black Mayor, Ras Baraka, while he and members of Congress were visiting a detention center. When that case was ignominiously dismissed, Trump officials pivoted and arrested Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.), also Black, also touring the facility.
Federal law, under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 at Section 532, grants members of Congress the right to inspect ICE detention facilities without prior notice, as a function of congressional oversight. Not only did McIver have the right to conduct oversight at the facility, she has a constitutional obligation to do so.
Democratic leadership released a joint statement calling the arrests “blatant attempts at intimidating” members of Congress. They might have added that the arrests were part of Trump’s strategy of fomenting race-based violence nationwide.
Backing up the camera from the micro to see the macro, Trump’s persistent DEI attacks against corporations and universities, his well-choreographed abuse of brown migrants, and his very public attempts to intimidate Black elected officials by arresting them supports a sinister theory: that Trump wants to trigger racial violence to give him cover to declare martial law before the midterms.
Rule by martial law is not a new concept; it exists throughout autocratic regimes and lies at the core of Project 2025, which Trump, despite disavowing, has been implementing with alacrity.
Architects of Project 2025 want a unitary government with power consolidated in a single, strongman executive. Their Mandate for Leadership is a 920-page road map directing Trump’s efforts to amass excessive power by sidelining both the legislative and judicial branches, efforts already well under way. Project 2025 champions a far-right, white, Christian nationalist, pro-corporate, and anti-worker philosophy. Enabled by removing checks and balances on Trump’s power, Christo-fascists want the state to regulate bedroom behavior, outlaw homosexuality and birth control, and impose state-forced births nationwide, including in democrat-run cities and states. They redefine personal autonomy as an asset that belongs to an all-powerful state.
The ever-prescient Thom Hartmann recently distilled the dictators’ playbook into two steps: Aspirant dictators must first create an ‘enemy within.’ Check. Then, they encourage or exploit “big, splashy attacks on the country” to seize more power. If race riots start, this second box will be checked.
Hartmann observes that, “Trump appears to be preparing for the type of authoritarian crackdown Germany saw after the Reichstag fire that propelled Hitler to power in 1933.” Trump’s chilling EO, “Strengthening and unleashing America’s law enforcement to pursue criminals and protect innocent citizens” makes plain that Trump intends to illegally deploy the military against American citizens.
Trump’s carousel of abuse is a sinister ploy to elicit help from the very minorities he seeks to oppress. He is poking us to explode in violent outrage so that he can declare martial law before the midterms, sic the military on US citizens, and “protect America” from yet another disaster he purposely created.
Americans should heed Martin Luther King Jr. and engage in non-violent, righteous resistance instead. Wherever you are, whatever you are doing, show up on June 14 and show the world your disgust at America’s would-be king. You, me, and millions of Americans can stop him, and it starts by showing up.
Sabrina Haake is a 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. Her columns are found @ Alternet, Chicago Tribune, Howey Political Report, Indiana Democrats’ Kernel of Truth, Inside Indiana Business, MSN, Out South Florida, Raw Story, Salon, Smart News, South Florida Gay News, State Affairs, and Windy City Times. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.
Copyright © 2025 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 |
Masthead
|
Privacy Policy
|
Manage Preferences
|
Debug Logs
For corrections contact
corrections@rawstory.com
, for support contact
support@rawstory.com
.